Tvl. Dhananjay Traders vs. The State Tax Officer
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Tvl. Dhananjay Traders, challenged an order dated 19.02.2021 passed by the State Tax Officer. The impugned order stemmed from an inspection of the petitioner's timber business premises by the Enforcement Department on 10.09.2020 and 11.09.2020. Subsequently, the petitioner was called for a personal hearing by the respondent but failed to appear, leading to the issuance of the impugned order. The petitioner's premises were inspected for the period 2017-2018. The petitioner also noted defaults in filing GSTR-3 returns for February and March 2018, while GSTR-1 and GSTR-2 were filed for the corresponding outward supplies and purchases.
Held
The Court considered the arguments from both sides. It noted that the petitioner was in default in filing GSTR-3 returns for February and March 2018, although GSTR-1 and GSTR-2 were filed for the corresponding outward supplies and purchases. A notice was issued, but the petitioner failed to respond, resulting in the impugned order. The Court observed that the petitioner had lost the alternative appellate remedy due to the expiry of the limitation period and had filed the present Writ Petition to overcome this limitation and the requirement of pre-deposit. Recognizing the petitioner as an aggrieved person, the Court inclined to dispose of the Writ Petition by granting liberty to the petitioner to file a statutory appeal before the Appellate Commissioner within thirty days from the receipt of the order, subject to making the mandatory pre-deposit. The Appellate Commissioner was directed to entertain the appeal on merits without considering the limitation period and dispose of it in accordance with the law.
Key Issues
1. Whether the impugned order dated 19.02.2021 is invalid and not in accordance with the provisions of the GST Act and Rules, specifically concerning the issuance of the show cause notice, as per Rule 100(2) and Rule 142(1)(a) of the CGST Rules, 2017? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned order is contrary to the rules because the show cause notice ought to have been issued electronically in FORM GST DRC-01, as mandated by Rules 100(2) and 142(1)(a) of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017. Respondent's contention: The respondent argued that the petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of latches, as the petitioner failed to avail the opportunity of personal hearing despite being given an opportunity, and the impugned order is dated 19.02.2021.
Sections Cited
Rule 100(2), Rule 142(1)(a)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
O R D E R Elaborate arguments were advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner at the time of admission itself. 2.It is noted that the petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 19.02.2021 for the assessment year 2017-18. It appears that, the petitioner's premises, where the petitioner was carrying Timber business, was inspected by the Enforcement Department on 10.09.2020 and 11.09.2020. Thereafter, the petitioner was called for personal hearing by the respondent. However, the petitioner has failed to appear, which is culminated in the impugned order. 3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is contrary to the rules inasmuch as the show cause 1/3 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ notice ought to have been issued in FORM GST DRC-01 electronically, as per Rules 100(2) and 142(1)(a) of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017. 4.Opposing the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent submits that despite opportunity being given, the petitioner failed to avail the opportunity of personal hearing. It is therefore submitted that the petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of latches as the impugned order is dated 19.02.2021. 5.I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent. 6.It is to be noted that the petitioner is in default in filing GSTR-3 return for the month of February and March 2018, though for the corresponding period, the petitioner appears to have been filed GSTR-1&2 indicating the outward supply and purchases. The petitioner was issued with a notice, but the petitioner failed to respond. Thus, the impugned order has been passed. The petitioner has squandered the alternative appellate remedy by letting the limitation to expire. Now this Writ Petition has been filed to get over the limitation and pre-deposit. 7.Considering the fact that the petitioner is an aggrieved person, I am inclined to dispose of this Writ Petition with liberty by giving liberty to the petitioner to file a statutory appeal before the Appellate Commissioner within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order on making mandatory pre-deposit. The Appellate Commissioner shall entertain the appeal on merits without reference to the limitation and dispose the same in accordance with law. 8.Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of with the above terms. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. Assistant Registrar (Writs) //// / /2022 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) vji 2/3 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Note: Registry is directed to return the original impugned order after substituting the sign with the photo copy and getting endorsement from the learned counsel for the petitioner.
To The State Tax Officer, Inspection Cell-IV, Trichy.
Copy To The Section Officer E.R.Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. +1 CC to M/s.R.D.GANESAN, Advocate ( SR-10245[F] dated 07/03/2022 ) +1 CC to M/s.SPL GP ( SR-10598[F] dated 08/03/2022 ) W.P. (MD) No. 4083 of 2022 and W.M.P. (MD) No. 3487 of 2022 07.03.2022 RS(07.04.2022) 3P-5C 3/3 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
Reproduced from the public record of the Madras High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.